Seduction (tort)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass land chattels Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Negligent infliction of emotional distress Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice legal medical
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts, and estates
Law portal
v t e

The tort of seduction was a civil wrong in common law legal systems. An unmarried woman could sue on the grounds of seduction to obtain damages from her seducer, if her consent to sex was based upon his misrepresentation.^[1]

Legal basis

The tort of seduction was based on "notions of property interests in humans", specifically fathers' property interests in their daughters' chastity.^[2]

The suing woman was "usually but not always a virgin".^[1]

England

Historically, the seduced female could not bring a suit herself. Rather, it would be brought by her father, acting under the legal fiction that the parent-child relationship falls under the master-servant relationship. However, if the daughter was a contracted servant, a suit could not be brought by her father against her master.^[2]

Canada

Property and civil rights is a provincial power in Canada, so all torts can vary by province.

Ontario

An Act to make the remedy for cases of Seduction more effectual, and to tender the Fathers of illegitimate Children liable for their support was passed in Upper Canada on March 4, 1837. Amending traditional common law, it allowed fathers to sue their daughters' masters for the tort of seduction. It also held biological fathers liable for children conceived out of wedlock.

The Seduction Act was repealed in 1978.^[2]

Alberta

The 1934 John Brownlee sex scandal revolved around a seduction suit.

Other provinces

An 1852 statute in Prince Edward Island allowed for a seduced woman to sue for herself with this tort.,^[2] although damages were capped at 100 pounds. Manitoba and the North West Territories enacted similar legislation around the turn of the 19th century.^[2]

United States

The tort is abolished in "most states".^[1] Fears of fraudulent suits, combined with a turn away from the view of property interests in persons, led to the enactment of "heart balm" statutes, abolishing causes of action for seduction, breach of promise, etc., in many states in the 20th century.

Notes

↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Posner, Richard (1994). Sex and Reason. p. 81. ISBN 0-674-80279-9. "The tort of seduction allows an unmarried woman (formerly her father or other guardian), usually but not always a virgin, to obtain damages from her seducer, provided that he made misrepresentations to obtain her consent to sex."
↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Bailey, Martha (1991). "Girls and Masters: The Tort of Seduction and the Support of Bastards". Canadian Journal of Family Law 10: 137–162. Retrieved 2009-07-13.